Now that Donald Trump has bent the knee to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, the threat that his administration poses to American democracy and transatlantic unity and security can no longer be credibly denied. Can the West survive his presidency?

Ridicule is no reply. Liberalism is reduced to this since its stock-in-trade is proclaiming the need for 'new ideas' without actually having any - unlike the populist right and its commitment to action to shape the future which belongs to it now.

Your use of the anti-liberalism argument disguises the fact that1. Liberals are currently trying to dominate both the national and global agenda rather than see themselves as a group equal to all other groups.2. Trump is trying to create an international order that gives equal democratic rights to all nation-groups with a few exceptions like jihadists and their backers.

What I want is similar. A confederation of equal nations cooperating to achieve #oneplanetliving.

Trump is channeling a Nazi!!! Weiner certainly knows how to grab our attention, but he also earns our distrust by such an obvious gimmick.

More fundamentally, the analogy just doesn't ring true. I simply don't recognize the Trump that Weiner describes. Partly it is because Trump is the antithesis of this sort of high-falutin concept-mongering. But mostly it is because the concepts don't seem to illuminate Trump in any way. Trump is a deal-maker, so he is by definition a pragmatist, opportunist, rooted in the present and unswervingly focused on the potential bargaining leverage in US relations with other countries.

Trump's goals? No philosophy is needed to explain them. As the author of The Art of the Deal, Trump's MO consists in applying what he sees as his expertise, and his flair for dramatic moves, to fixing seriatim the problems that his predecessors have allowed to fester. In some cases (Afghanistan?), he may choose the Wall Street walk. In other cases, he probably recognizes that he may win some and lose some. But regardless he still comes out ahead.

That brings me to another basic problem with Weiner's account: He appears to have swallowed whole the hand-wringing, tut-tutting, pass-me-the-smelling-salts, inside-the-beltway reaction to Trump. His premise is that Trump is an aberration that needs to be explained.

Bu there is another narrative out there. It is best exemplified by a report on how some in China views Trump (see "Chinese sentences of the day another view of Trump" in Marginal Revolution, July 26): "I have just spent a week in Beijing talking to officials and intellectuals, many of whom are awed by his skill as a strategist and tactician…He [Yafei] worries that strategic competition has become the new normal and says that “trade wars are just the tip of the iceberg”... In Chinese eyes, Mr Trump’s response is a form of “creative destruction”. He is systematically destroying the existing institutions — from the WTO and the NAFTA to NATO and the Iran nuclear deal — as a first step towards renegotiating the world order on terms more favourable to Washington. Once the order is destroyed, the Chinese elite believes, Mr Trump will move to stage two: renegotiating America’s relationship with other powers. Because the US is still the most powerful country in the world, it will be able to negotiate with other countries from a position of strength if it deals with them one at a time rather than through multilateral institutions that empower the weak at the expense of the strong…

They speak of the skillful way Mr Trump has treated President Xi Jinping. 'Look at how he handled North Korea,' one says. 'He got Xi Jinping to agree to UN sanctions [half a dozen] times, creating an economic stranglehold on the country. China almost turned North Korea into a sworn enemy of the country.' But they also see him as a strategist, willing to declare a truce in each area when there are no more concessions to be had, and then start again with a new front."

The elephant in the room is socialist liberalism which is a blend of both ism's. The self-appointed mission of socialists and modern liberals (past hundred years) is to create an ideal society along socialist liberal lines. For the time being there is a major roadblock in the USA in the person of Donald Trump. That is why he is vilified by the socialist liberal camp which includes the news media and some of the entertainment media.

Anti-liberal? Whatever Trump seems to be doing, how does it compare to the regulators introducing odiously credit distorting risk weighted capital requirements for banks, based on the utter nonsense that what’s perceived risky, is more dangerous to bank systems than what’s perceived safe?

I’d have more confidence in your liberal perspective if you offered a critique of what is wrong with liberal philosophy. It seems to me you’ve set out the two opposing philosophies, both of which have failed. Where is the sustainable balance between them? I think liberal philosophy falls down by prioritising the individual over society and maybe the reverse is true for Schmitt. What you can’t deny is that Tump has come to power because many people have suffered under globalised liberal philosophy. So, I suggest we look for a balance - individual freedom is dependent in environmental hostility and it has to accept some limits. What do you suggest, more of the same failed policies?

I think this writer is trying to define the new brand of nationalism that is emerging…

The point is we are beginning to move away from rank liberalism as a dangerous state of order and back to a modified state of nationalism where we live someplace we will fight to protect….. but ultra-aware of the global picture…. Most of the population wants its home land intact from globalism even if they want to share the benefits of globalization….

Trump is trying to find that better balance and is not drinking the multilateralism and multiculturalism cool-aid like others before him… and although he is like a bull in a china shop …he is showing the way..

The doctrine of global liberalism and the practice of non-interference with internal affairs of other nations are not mutually exclusive. Instead of forcing others to be like us, which may lead to perpetual warfare, we can be a beacon for others to see and copy if they choose. The doctrine of live and let live works fine in a liberal order. I think the writer confuses liberalism with neo-conservatism. They are not the same. Joseph in Missoula

Mark S. Weiner says Trump, despite his ignorance, malice and mendacity, masters the skill of “popular storytelling.” He has also managed to tap into his supporters’ sensitivity to emotive issues and can feel deeply how they respond to his agitation. His interaction with the mass audiences at a rally serves as an “emotional input” which is then politicised as an output on Twitter. The author says although Trump is “no philosopher,” he does “channel certain concepts instinctively.” In his view, there is “one thinker whom Trump seems to channel most – and who can help make sense of his behavior, especially his widely-condemned moral equivocation toward Russia – it is the German legal philosopher Carl Schmitt,” the infamous Weimar – and later Nazi – scholar, whose aphorism “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.”Yet Trump knows most likely very little about Schmitt. What he parrots reflects Schmitt’s “disdain for liberalism’s universal aspirations.” In fact Trump had been brainwashed – rather than indoctrinated – by Steve Bannon. His former White House strategist is a true postmodern fascist, exemplifying the Nazi jurist’s sinister ideal of a political leader, who unites his followers by creating enemies for them to hate. Trump feels no qualms about lashing out at blacks, Jews, Muslims, Latinos and other minorities.Schmitt was the first political philosopher explicitly to speak of "the other", the enemy who must be identified not only in order to be defeated but also to sustain the coherence of the state. For Schmitt, politics was war, and Trump’s belligerence is unsettling. His politics also appear to depend on mobilising the masses against the marginalised - those suspected of crime or terrorism, or immigrants and refugees. Most of all Trump relishes putting the blame on his predecessor, Obama, and the Democrats for creating the “mess.” Their political correctness, like placing “individual rights at the core of their political communities, which are “non-exclusive,” has been ridiculed. Schmitt approved of the "rule of exception" - that sovereignty, at crucial points, must exclude certain people from having rights in order to enforce its power. Trump and his supporters do not believe that, the rights they enjoy should be extended to “everyone.” In their “anti-liberal view, there is no reason to view Russia as an absolute enemy. And there is every reason to undermine international institutions and to cut loose America’s traditional allies.” It explains why Trump sees “those nation-states and institutions that seek to place external limits on sovereignty and conceive of political community in normative rather than territorial and cultural terms” as his “true enemies.”America, in Trump’s view, has been “raped” and “robbed” or “taken advantage of” by the rest of the world. Now he has to ensure that America comes first. In The Concept of the Political, Schmitt argued that, when presented with crisis, liberal democracies will put aside constitutional niceties in order to survive. The public consents to its government violating liberal values because crisis is a state of exception, which requires desperate measures. No wonder Trump’s supporters are ready to turn a blind eye to his moral nihilism, as long as he does what they voted him for. The German playwright, Bertolt Brecht wrote against the dangers of inertia in 1935 as Hitler was changing Germany beyond recognition. Although the US has a strong civil society and robust institutions that will survive Trump’s presidency, he has already divided the country further and changed the world for the worse – showing disdain for the truth and the rule of law, grovelling to dictators and human rights abusers, humiliating allies and friends, scrapping decades old treaties and agreements, sowing discord etc. Ever since the two World Wars, Western liberals have considered war “'unthinkable”. Now they are seeing an increase in the indulgence of political violence that echoes the 1930s. In the view of Schmitt's conservative admirers, this only means that war has become more thoughtless, not less frequent or less brutal. Trump’s toxic ideology and zero-sum game approach are a good mix for conflicts.

After having read so many stupidities written by liberal pseudo intellectuals foaming with rage at Trump’s election, this is the first intelligent point l read on the topic. Yes you are perfectly right. Trump is a very talented, instinctive popular schmittist (should one say schmittian?) leader and statesman.

This is probably unintended but you made to Donald Trump the greatest compliment you could have made to him. Given the fact that humans are territorial beings, aiming at developing various cultures of their owns in the framework of competing sovereign nations or empires, and that the despicable wilsonian concept of world hegemony for democracy and human rights has proven to be the most inhumane war mongering utopy responsible for endless sufferings, and a total failure, quite obviously Schmitt’s and Trump views are infinitely superior to all the bullshit about spreading democracy by bombing millions of innocent civilians all around the world, which is the most accurate way how how US policies in the century from 1918 since Wilson can be described.

Probably every and all yankee liberals are living in a world of their own, which makes them completely imune to reality and they do not realize the abyssal depth of the world wide rejection which 30 years of mad neo con wars have caused in human conscience, resulting in an universal disgust and moral insurrection against the liberal views and moral imperialism.

Nothing is more ludicrous and murderous than this typically yankee liberal view consisting in pretending to make the world safe for democracy by killing millions of innocents everywhere in the world and being utterly hypocritical about the pseudo moral conduct of politics. Now the demonstration has been made in a way as deep and irreversible as it happened after the thirty years war (1618-1848) which demonstrated for the humankind’s deep conscience how nonsensical religious wars are.

Definitely Trump and Schmitt are more civilized and preferable to all this bloody non sense which nobody can stand for anymore. But also, Trump would not have had this appeal if the falsity of the liberal views would not have been demonstrated by the last 30 years of wars for pseudo democracy and human rights.

Trump has no interest in either Schmitt, or (more to the point) Leo Strauss. America already had a Monroe doctrine and a notion of Manifest Destiny such that only native born Americans of a particular colour and provenance should benefit. Nazi Germany was playing catch up by imitating American 'Jim Crow' type laws as well as forcible sterilization for eugenic reasons.

What is missing in America, but present in Schmitt, is the notion of a 'state of exception' or the Fuehrer as a 'homo sacer' above the Law. Only if the Americans abolished the two term limit for Presidents is there any danger that (as Godel pointed out) the country could become a constitutional dictatorship.

Since American Presidents expect to continue to live for at least a decade after quitting office, they have an incentive to uphold the rule of law rather than risk becoming the victim of populist anger in their declining years.

Liberalism, like other ideologies, does make some universal claims however, in practice, it recognises that rights are only meaningful if linked to incentive compatible obligations under a bond of law. It is true that there has been some 'over-reach' on the basis of 'universal human rights' or 'universal jurisdiction' but this has provoked a backlash. It is no longer the case that the Liberal favours unlimited migration or universal entitlements or Humanitarian intervention. Obama himself walked back such policies and Trump is continuing that trend. Even Angela Merkel is following suit.

It should be remembered that Schmitt's ideas were a response to the notion of the legitimacy of pure, revolutionary, violence wholly unconnected with any notion of right or wrong. It is noteworthy that even Communist regimes repudiated this 'Maoist' notion. I need hardly say that no Liberal has ever endorsed anything like it though I suppose 'neo-con' regime change involving bombing countries back into the stone age might count as 'pure' violence of the sort mentioned by Walter Benjamin. But, neo-cons are exTrostsyites or Straussian elitists and not liberal at all.

Schmitt is only remembered by those on the Left- more especially those influenced by Continental thinkers like Agamben. I am not aware that he has any influence or importance for Conservative jurisprudence in the Anglo Saxon world.

Don't know whether Trump is on the same class of Carl Schmitt who was considered the main theorist of HATRED. In addition, while Schmitt saw politics as a matter distinguishing friends from enemies, Trump is more interested in building his own brand. All enemies would be good enemies if they contribute to build his brand. Was Trump really acting out the logical culmination of Schmitt's idea when stood next to Putin?

This is bloody brilliant in understanding the emotional valences of Trumpism though it marginalizes the importance of constituting the people not just through borders and shared territory (on this see www.profitclip.com) but the fictive kinship of racial identity

through generational amnesia, we are witnessing today a rebirth of fascism. It is that simple, with no need for further elaboration or pompous philosophy.

Fascism was widespread in interwar Europe, as it was in the United States. This simple truth has been forgotten, or swept under the proverbial rug, in the post-WW2 revulsion against Hitlerian version of Fascism and the Holocaust of the Jews that it brought about, followed by a grim struggle against the sole fascist survivor of WW2 - the Soviet Union.These struggles are now largely forgotten with the turnover of generations, and their meaning is now lost to these new generations. So, they are repeating the sins of their grandfathers.

Fascism is a political methodology of ruling through incitement of emotion. Emotions are easier to incite at the time of hardship, but they can also be incited at the time of relative prosperity, as the present day rise of fascism demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt. Fascism is so dangerous, because it tends to work. An average human is a creature of emotion, first and foremost. Logical thinking requires discipline, hard work and steadfast,daily commitment. A bar brawl and debauchery comes naturally.

It will be an interesting exercise, one day, to trace back the process of realization of the gravity of the situation that we are finding ourselves in. It is fortunate in a way that there are fewer and fewer people advising wise restraint and waiting the whole thing out. Time to realize that we are in for a fight ,and the opponent is both wicked and determined.

The stakes in this fight could not be higher. Fascism leads to war, like day follows night. Unrestrained power, once firmly established, seeks an outlet in foreign aggression. It has always been thus. In the world full of nukes ,WW1+WW2 will look like a little picnic by comparison.

It boils down to the collapse of ideas and statesmanship in American politics. One cannot nothing else except mediocrity throughout. Basic instincts above rationality seem to pervade in the highly polarized American political spectrum.

'Fascism is a political methodology of ruling through incitement of emotion. ' But outside a science laboratory there is no other source of belief and action! Arguments, reasonings, worthy speeches are advanced to defend the positions people already hold: the link to an emotion (say solidarity) and an argument is direct; so is the link between the emotional stand and associated action. But the link between an argument and its action is tenuous in the extreme. Read W.Pareto's excellent analysis in his General Sociology. He also outlined there the sucession of political regimes: as between foxes (clever manipulators, educated, liars, tying us in knots) and lions (men of action sweeping away the fox's legal cobwebs, who achieve results and order and match the list of transgressions withan achieved list of punishments at least equal to it, and satisfy the judicial emotion of the people). The Peanut King giving away Panama v Trump the reclaimer, perhaps?

Excellent , crisp summarization. I like it. You must have read lots of history books and dwelt on these historic issues. Congratulations to you. Sympathetic support to culture of Facism is not just restricted to Europe or N.america, it is there in other countries in S.Asia and M.East also.

I think most of the comments are about right: Trump only knows what "works" with his base, which is the resonance of the homeland, blood and soil, and identity, that worked for the Nazis too. Considering the Nazi connection, the Trump base is acting about as would be expected: racial purity, identity politics, almost complete loss of "America" as an idea. And that might include the loss of an intelligent understanding of the Constitution. But it is good to be reminded of the history of these land and identity ideas: where they come from and where they can lead. And such ideas may well be more "natural" and common to many people than an intellectual connection to an odd, 18th Century notion of "Liberty."

The other sad thing is that these Trump People are our friends and neighbors, and they aren't going anywhere. They believe in rules. They think black people are lazy, and that is at best. The only bit of good news is that the Trump People are in the minority: Clinton got many more votes than Trump. and that is even with the problem, as I see it, of the enormous "baggage" associated with Clinton.

There is no harm done by taking this little dachshund of an idea for a walk around the block, except that somebody has to clean up after its' projection of ideation onto Trump. Our European friends, and especially those like Lord Bob Skidelsky whose brains are somehow predisposed to imagine there is anything such as 'Trumpism', please invest an hour exposing yourself to an authoritative, first-hand american view of the situation and watch the formidable David Cay Johnston for an hour. See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gK_rQOqZ2ks

First: to what extent did Schmitt contribute to the popular German zeitgeist in the 1930's and 40's? Did he actually have an influence on the attitudes of the German people, or did he merely mirror their existing attitudes in a more philosophical narrative?

And second: is there a conservative political philosopher that is today playing the role of Trump's Carl Schmitt?

Excellent food for thought. I dare to call it unlikely that Donald T. Trump ever heard of Carl Schmitt. Or that Trump has any philosophical or ideological underpinning at all. At a campaign rally he was asked by a women: 'Who is white trash ?' Trump responded that white trash are people like himself without money. He was belittling himself to his true size. He is a bully and he caters to people who admire bullies, particularly rich bullies, whom they consider smart, since otherwise they would not be rich. Trump is obviously 'street smart' and extremely ambitious, but equally dangerous since no moral compass appears to be in sight. Speaking loudly and showing the big stick will eventually lead to using it. This can be militarily, but could also be economically, both with devastating effect. He does not appear to be street smart enough to grasp the complexity of politics or economic management beyond the short term.

Thanks for the insight. Much of the ultra-right is led by “thinkers” who are intelligent enough to understand such writers, but do not have an education broad enough or humanitarian impulses to help them recognize such sophistry.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.